Keshav Ram vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Learned counsel for State has submitted that instructions have been received and as per the instructions, revisionist-Keshav Ram is in judicial custody.

According to the prosecution, a skin of Guldar was recovered from the possession of the revisionist-accused. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 39 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Against the judgment dated 02.05.2019, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1782 of 2018, a Criminal Appeal (No.13 of 2019) was filed. The said Criminal Appeal has been dismissed vide judgment dated 24.06.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh.

Heard Mr. Ajay Joshi, learned counsel for revisionist and Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for State.

Mr. Ajay Joshi, Advocate, contended that as per the prosecution story, Guldar’s skin was recoverd from the applicant on the busy road, despite which there is no public witness in the alleged recovery. There are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution’s witnesses; therefore, there are substantial doubts about the conviction.

Admit.

List on 06.11.2023.

Heard on the Bail Application (IA No. 1 of 2023).

Mr. Ajay Joshi, Advocate, has submitted that revisionist has been in judicial custody since last more than eight months. During the trial, revisionist was on bail and the conditions of bail were never misused by him.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the revisionist Keshav Ram.

Let the revisionist be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Trial Court.